Source 2
As you can see, most of the large operations mounted failed and lives were wasted. After these atrocities, Field Marshal Haig was known throughout the armed forces as a “butcher and bungler”. This started Haig’s reputation for being a killer whom sent me to their deaths thousands at a time.
Another one of Field Marshal Haig’s flaws was the tactics that he used in beating the Germans. He had believed all along that his “master plan” would pull through. His faith in his tactics blinded him to the fact that the army was becoming predictable to the Germans and they were slaughtering the armed forces. I have used another script entry from Blackadder Goes Forth, in which describes Field Marshal Haig’s plan:
Source 3
The last part of the argument was that the soldiers who were described as “lions” were sent to fight in impossible conditions. They were cold, wet and miserable due to the lack of food and water. Once the soldiers began to realise that they were living in the wrong conditions, misery set in and Field Marshal Haig was becoming more popular. A poem was written by one of the soldiers who survived the war, and he tells of the conditions and the thoughts of the soldiers.
Source 4
These are the arguments put forward are very convincing and are difficult to put to rest. I must question these sources because they may not be accurate. After looking at these, I must look at the argument, which is against the accusation that the Generals were “Donkeys”.
The Case Against The Interpretation
There is one fact about the argument that I have so far left out. We won the war. So even though the Generals did a totally pathetic job, sacrificed many lives and gained a bad reputation but we still won the war? No matter how much we criticise the Generals, we cannot deny the fact that they won the war for us.
Another thing that challenged the Generals, was the type of warfare meant that they had no choice but to expect heavy casualties. They could not prevent this because they had never fought in trench battles. The Generals did not know what to expect or how to prepare. This may be a counter-argument for the fact that many lives were lost for too small a gain and the tactics used, which were useless.
The Generals were accused of living miles away from the Front line and living cushy life-styles. But the question is, what good would the General's presence on the Front line do? They would simply risk their lives for no apparent reason. Many Generals actually died on the Front, which proves that they did go to the Front, despite of many people's allegations.
Looking at evidence from back when the war was in its gruelling stages, letters home from the soldiers revealed no distaste for Field Marshal Haig, in fact, they had great faith in his plans. I believe that it was only after the war, when we had hindsight, did we start to criticise Haig.
Source 5
From when we first learned of our mistakes, we instantly blamed the Generals and Haig for the atrocities of the War, but it was the politicians that gave the Generals their orders. Surely we shouldn't be blaming the middleman? If anyone, it should be the politicians who should be getting it in the neck. They idly sat by and watched the Generals and Field Marshal Haig get blamed. After that, the politicians gave Haig a house, £100,000 and made him an Earl.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I feel that the Generals were and were not "donkeys" in a sense that they were doing what they thought was right. Not only was it the only option, but also it seemed the only solution to the fighting. I am still unable to make a decision about the argument but I believe that both sides have valid and worthy points of view.
